Interesting house rule from gabe@pennyarcade

[blargney the second]

Gabe posted this yesterday:

I made a pretty major change to the rules in my D&D campaign that I wanted to share. I'm not sure this is right for every group but it really worked for my guys. I decided to make most checks a minor rather than a standard action.

Normally if a player wants to examine a strange fountain or try and pull a statue he needs to make a check. The DM might call for an arcana or a strength check and that is a standard action. This means that if you want to try and see if there is anything magical about the strange alter,you can do that but you can't do much else. I found that my players would wait until after a fight to go around and make all their checks. This would be fine except that I would often spend a lot of time creating things in the environment that could affect the fight if the players used them. They simply didn't want to waste a standard action on interacting with the world when they could spend it hitting the bad guy.

In our last game I decided to make checks a minor action and the results were incredible. My players were making checks all the time. Trying to determine if the crazy warlock was lying to them, checking to see if the magic runes are still active, can we reason with the demon? They all agreed that it really improved the game for them. As the DM I still reserve the right to tell them that a particular check is a standard action and I might do that depending on what they are trying to do. But for the most part I want them out there making checks and exploring the world.

Like I said this probably isn't something for every game but if you have players like mine, it might be worth a try.
-Gabe out

I think it's an interesting idea - I could certainly see myself responding in pretty much exactly the same way he reports his players did!
-blarg

 

[Mr. Wilson]

This is probably better suited to the 4E forum, but if you want the PCs to have more interaction with the environment, this rule change would be a good step in that direction.

Gabe points out (correctly) that it's a better use of a standard to attack than to try something different, in most circumstances, so it makes sense to drop those kind of actions to a minor.

 

[blargney the second]

I thought of posting it in one of the 4e forums, but I'm actually thinking of adopting it for my 3.5 game. So I split the difference and popped it out to General.

I like the idea behind his post - it really is more interesting when players aren't taxed to death in the action economy for wanting to chew on the scenery. A standard action is ultimately a very expensive cost (ie. a deterrant) for wanting to screw around with the neat stuff that the DM stocked the adventure with.

 

[jbear]

I thought of posting it in one of the 4e forums, but I'm actually thinking of adopting it for my 3.5 game. So I split the difference and popped it out to General.

I like the idea behind his post - it really is more interesting when players aren't taxed to death in the action economy for wanting to chew on the scenery. A standard action is ultimately a very expensive cost (ie. a deterrant) for wanting to screw around with the neat stuff that the DM stocked the adventure with.

Totally agree. There is nothing more disappointing than designing an encounter full of fun stuff for the pcs to interact with only to have the players ignore them and simply slug it out.

I use this same house rule. Actually I thought it wasn't a house rule, at least for knowledge checks, which I thought were free actions. Yeah, but definitely more fun using a skill to operate/interact with something relevant to a battle: minor action.

I have also reduced Intimidating and bluffing to a minor. Initially I played it this way as an oversight. When I discovered my error and began to play by the rules, all the fun RP intimidating and Bluffing that was going on disappeared. We made a group decision to bring it back because it was more fun.

Long live the Fun!

 

[Goonalan]

Already do this, although I sometimes make exceptions, if I have a big bad trap/puzzle whatever then I clearly state that someone will have to fix trap/puzzle while other PCs hold the bad guys off- it doesn't happen often mind.

I too didn't appreciate fully that skill checks were Standard actions, it was one of my players that informed me- I was disappointed with this and so dropped it like a hot rock. I'm not big on reading the rules anyway, they sometimes get in the way.

 

[Storminator]

I like the idea behind his post - it really is more interesting when players aren't taxed to death in the action economy for wanting to chew on the scenery. A standard action is ultimately a very expensive cost (ie. a deterrant) for wanting to screw around with the neat stuff that the DM stocked the adventure with.

The problem is that you're not trading a standard action for a scenery interaction; you're trading a standard action for a possible scenery interaction. That's what makes this rule better. A minor action is a small wager that can pay off. A standard action is a large wager that is unlikely to have a comparable payoff.

PS

 

[wedgeski]

Yep, I do this as a rule of thumb already, with exceptions where necessary. Nice to give the PC's something to do with all those Minors that otherwise go unloved.

 

[IronWolf]

I would agree, an interesting house rule that could add some interesting dynamics to encounters. Sort of allows quick exploring of the room and its features while still facing the threat at hand.

 

[odinfellhammer]

I like the Idea, but I think that it depends on the situation and the encounter.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Interestingly, one of the first [-]erratas[/-] rules updates made to 4e was to change an active Perception check from a Standard to a minor action.

So there is some precedent!